geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Upgrade Pluto to 1.1? (was Re: What are we using Castor for?)
Date Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:26:01 GMT

On Mar 3, 2007, at 6:39 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> How modular is the existing console code?  I'm thinking that some  
> work is probably needed to make it more modular, so that the  
> existing functionality could be split up into smaller domain- 
> specific modules and then deployed into the console app.  Right now  
> it looks like a big app, would like to see each of the major bits  
> as a separate module... to help keep things orderly and prevent  
> spaghetti code (which I've already started to notice when I looked  
> at some Derby and AMQ-related console bits last).

modular == good
>
> How much _heavier_ is Jetspeed2 vs. Pluto?

A really lot heavier.  A reasonable j2 integration will also be a  
significant effort since its going to  involve a big security  
integration, probably a new jacc provider (or using triplesec), and a  
lot of other stuff.  An unreasonably incomplete integration wouldn't  
need all of this.... but j2 has a lot of stuff for laying out apps,  
administering everything, etc etc etc.

>   I know that J2 now uses Pluto (though not sure what version,  
> hopefully its 1.1).
I think they're still on 1.0.1.

> I'm all for lightweight... but I'm also okay with a little bit of  
> extra pounds if it makes the console application easier for app  
> developers/sysadmins to plugin/customize their own administration  
> bits.

I'm not sure that j2 would really make it a lot easier to add in  
admin plugins.  I think its definitely worth investigating how far  
pluto 1.1 will get us.

thanks
david jencks

>
> --jason
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
>> I agree with Aaron that Pluto 1.1 would provide a much better  
>> baseline
>> for making the admin console more pluggable.  Jetspeed and Liferay  
>> are
>> excellent portals as well but since they are application  
>> frameworks in
>> their own right I think they provide a lot of functionality beyond
>> what is needed for the admin console.
>>
>> David DeWolf from the Pluto team contacted us offering his assistance
>> in upgrading the admin console to pluto 1.1, and that sparked a very
>> interesting conversation.  He specifically said that pluto 1.1
>> supports dynamic addition of portlets, which is key for making the
>> admin console pluggable.  See:
>>   http://tinyurl.com/3cdmj3
>> That was in 12/2005 (!) but maybe we can rekindle that conversation
>> while we put the finishing touches on G 2.0.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 3/3/07, Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>> Pluto 1.1 integration would be great, and would allow much more
>>> reasonable dynamic additions of screens to the console.  Someone  
>>> just
>>> needs to do the work.  :)
>>>
>>> I expect Jetspeed 2 would do the same, but I think Pluto would be  
>>> much
>>> more lightweight, so I would think it would be preferable for the
>>> console, whereas Jetspeed and Liferay would be preferable for people
>>> developing portal applications.
>>>
>>> I believe David J did some initial work along these lines a while  
>>> back.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>       Aaron
>>>
>>> On 3/3/07, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
>>> > On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> > > It's used by pluto for the admin console.  No idea if more  
>>> recent
>>> > > would work.
>>> > >
>>> > > We could upgrade pluto too if anyone has some time to  
>>> investigate
>>> >
>>> > I wonder if anyone from the Pluto team would want to help with
>>> > that... looks like 1.1 is not compatible with 1.0.1... but also  
>>> looks
>>> > like that might not be a bad thing:
>>> >
>>> > <snip>
>>> > Pluto 1.1 introduces a new container architecture. If you are
>>> > embedding Pluto in your portal, realize that 1.1 is not binarily
>>> > compatible with Pluto 1.0.x.
>>> >
>>> > Pluto 1.1 aims to simplify the architecture in order to make it  
>>> more
>>> > user and developer friendly. You should find Pluto 1.1 easier  
>>> to get
>>> > started with, easier to understand, and easier to embed with your
>>> > portal. Your feedback regarding how far we've come is always  
>>> welcome
>>> > on the user and developer mailing lists!
>>> >
>>> > </snip>
>>> >
>>> > I don't know much abort portal muck, so I can't really show how  
>>> much
>>> > better 1.1 might be... but I know that there have been some issues
>>> > with the console asis now to get stuff like plugin porlets  
>>> installed
>>> > dynamically... perhaps 1.1 can help solve some of these issues?
>>> >
>>> > Anyone know?
>>> >
>>> > --jason
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>


Mime
View raw message